Molten Salt Reactor Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
A data-backed view of molten salt reactor patents: who holds the most families, how filings have grown since 2021, which IPC branches concentrate the claims, and where white space remains for new entrants.
Filing growth = 2021 (84 records) → 2024 (120); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 1,066 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the molten salt reactor patent record actually shows
Molten salt reactor patenting has moved from a niche pursuit to an active filing category over the past decade, tracked here across 1,066 records spanning 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. The search scope combines title/abstract mentions of molten salt reactors with claim-level language tied to nuclear or fusion reactor systems, filtered to the G21/G21C classification family — so the corpus captures reactor-core, fuel-salt and containment claims rather than every tangential mention of molten salt chemistry. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent years in any trend understate real activity.
Reading the landscape by patent family rather than raw document count matters here because a handful of assignees file across multiple jurisdictions and continuations for the same underlying design. Family-level counting neutralises that effect and gives a cleaner read on where genuine engineering investment sits versus where filing volume is inflated by prosecution strategy.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,066-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the class shares below sum to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and not a data error.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings climbed from 84 in 2017 to a peak of 120 in 2024, with the 2021-to-2024 span alone showing a 43% increase. The 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 15 by 2026, which is only partially published) reflect publication lag rather than a real slowdown in filing.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
IPC subclass composition
G21C (nuclear reactors) dominates at 92.8% of all 1,066 records, confirming that most activity targets the reactor core and its control systems directly. G21D (power plants, 10.2%) and G21F (radiation protection and shielding, 8.3%) are the next-largest branches, while materials-adjacent classes such as C01G, C22B and F28D each sit under 4% — a sign of comparatively light claim density outside the core reactor design itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,066 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Molten Salt Reactor Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about molten salt reactor patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited molten salt reactor patents
Fission Reaction Control in a Molten Salt Reactor (US20160189806A1)
A molten salt reactor includes a nuclear reactor core for sustaining a nuclear fission reaction fueled by a molten fuel salt. A molten fuel salt control system removes a volume of the molten fuel salt from the nuclear reactor core to maintain a reactivity parameter within a range of nominal reactivity. The system exchanges a volume of the molten fuel salt with a volume of a feed material containing a mixture of a selected fertile material and a carrier salt, and can include a volumetric displacement control system.Filed by TerraPower, LLC — dated 2016-06-30. Sits within the same reactivity-control claim space as several of the most-cited records in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130083878A1 | Nuclear reactors and related methods and apparatus | 122 |
| 2 | US20090279658A1 | Molten salt nuclear reactor | 105 |
| 3 | US20150036779A1 | Integral molten salt reactor | 82 |
| 4 | US20160189813A1 | Molten nuclear fuel salts and related systems and methods | 81 |
| 5 | US20180075931A1 | Heat pipe molten salt fast reactor with stagnant liquid core | 79 |
| 6 | JP2014119429A | Molten salt reactor | 76 |
| 7 | JP2001133572A | Molten salt reactor | 74 |
| 8 | US20160189806A1 | Fission reaction control in a molten salt reactor | 67 |
| 9 | US20150078504A1 | Hybrid molten salt reactor with energetic neutron source | 65 |
| 10 | US20160217874A1 | Molten Salt Reactor | 62 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat this as a signal of influence on subsequent filings, not a ranking of current technical importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the concentration and growth figures mean for strategy
The numbers point to a field that is filling in quickly at the core but still open at the edges. Three patterns stand out for anyone deciding where to file or where to partner.
The top of the field is real but not exclusionary
With the leading assignee at 97 records and fifth place at 63, the top five together hold 36.5% of all 1,066 records in scope. That leaves nearly two-thirds of the corpus to assignees outside that group, including a long tail of single-filing entrants — this is a field with an identifiable leadership tier, not a closed shop.
Activity is recent, and the 2024 peak is the last clean data point
Filings grew from 84 in 2021 to 120 in 2024, the highest year recorded in this dataset. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a decline — 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as complete.
The reactor core itself is the most crowded claim space
Nearly all activity — 92.8% of the 1,066 records — carries a G21C nuclear-reactor classification, meaning reactor-core, fuel-salt and control-system claims are the densest part of the field by a wide margin. Branches like heat-exchange apparatus (F28D, 1.9%) and metal extraction (C22B, 1.9%) see far less claim traffic, which is where design freedom is more likely to exist.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to molten salt reactor patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Abilene Christian University | Texas A&M University | 27 |
| Abilene Christian University | Board of Regents of the University of Texas System | 21 |
| Texas A&M University | Board of Regents of the University of Texas System | 21 |
| Abilene Christian University | Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 19 |
| Texas A&M University | Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 19 |
| Board of Regents of the University of Texas System | Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 13 |
| SCOTT IAN RICHARD | Scott Ian Richard | 4 |
| Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute | Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd. | 4 |
Co-assignee filing is rare in this dataset — only 10 pairs recorded — and the strongest links sit among a small cluster of university research groups filing jointly, rather than between commercial developers.
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions depending on whether you are scoping freedom-to-operate, tracking a competitor, or looking for a filing gap.
Map claims against a specific reactor design
Run the most-cited records against your own reactor-core or fuel-salt-handling design to see which claim elements you would need to design around before filing.
Explore claim charts in Eureka →Watch the leadership tier's filing cadence
The top assignees file steadily rather than in bursts; tracking their quarterly publication activity gives an early signal of where the next contested claim territory will open.
Set up assignee tracking in Eureka →Test white space in under-claimed branches
Materials analysis, metal extraction and heat-exchange apparatus all sit under 4% of records — worth a closer look before assuming the whole molten salt reactor space is crowded.
Run a white space search in Eureka →Common questions about molten salt reactor patents
The assignee ranking in this dataset covers 100 companies and research institutions, with the leader holding 97 of the 1,066 records in scope. The top five assignees together account for 36.5% of all records, and the top ten reach 52.7% — so while there is a clear leadership tier, more than a third of filings sit outside even the top ten. Anyone assessing competitive position should look at both the leader's individual count and the broader spread, since a single dominant filer does not mean the field is closed to new entrants.
Filing activity grew from 84 records in 2021 to a peak of 120 in 2024, a 43% increase over that three-year span. The apparent drop in 2025 and 2026 is a publication-lag artefact, not a real slowdown — patent applications typically publish around 18 months after filing, so the most recent one to two years in any dataset are always undercounted. Treat 2024 as the most recent year with a complete picture, and expect 2025 figures to rise as more applications publish.
The overwhelming majority of records, 92.8% of the 1,066 in scope, carry a G21C nuclear-reactor classification, meaning most claims focus on the reactor core, fuel salt handling and reactivity control. Nuclear power plant systems (G21D) and radiation shielding (G21F) are the next-largest categories at 10.2% and 8.3% respectively. Materials-related branches — compounds of other metals, metal extraction, heat-exchange apparatus — each sit under 4%, indicating those areas carry lighter claim density relative to the core reactor design itself.
The United States leads as a receiving office with 226 records, followed by China at 183, the WIPO PCT route at 139, and the European Patent Office at 132. South Korea and Canada follow at 78 and 68 respectively. This spread suggests molten salt reactor developers are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than concentrating filings in a single home market, consistent with a technology aimed at eventual commercial deployment across several regulatory regimes.
US20160189806A1, filed by TerraPower, LLC and dated 2016-06-30, claims a molten salt reactor system that removes and exchanges fuel salt volume to keep the reactor's reactivity within a nominal range, using a volumetric displacement control system. It sits in the same fuel-salt reactivity-control claim space as several of the most-cited records in this dataset, including patents cited well over 100 times. For anyone designing a reactivity-control mechanism for a molten salt reactor, this filing is a useful reference point for what has already been claimed around fuel-salt exchange and volumetric control.
Research Molten Salt Reactor Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole molten salt reactor patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.